New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-03-19
RuLVAY reg ULATION IN GREAT BRIT
AIN

RiILVAT REG ULATION IN GREAT BEII-
AIN.
II is an interesting fact that the British
Government has pending, at this time. bill
for the regulation OF railway charges and OPP
crations not unlike tie Interstate Commerce
bill recently passed by Congress. As might
lie expected, complaints are OF somewhat dii-
fcrcnt character in that country. and the mode
Of regulation and remedy contemplated are
somewhat different but there is n curious sim
ila,itv in the theories on which both measures
are framed. 1t should be rcmeml cred at tic
out,ct that the British legislator, if he under
takes TO regulate railway traffic, has before
him an infinitely easier task thGp the legislator
in this country. He has to deal with much
smaller railway mileage, With fewer roads and
with far less competition between the roads
themselves and between the railroad and water
rouics 1t is important also that he has 10
deal with no competition at all between British
and foreign railways. while IN this country a
very important clement in the problem Is the
possible competition between United States ana
Canndian railways, and the fact that reg'ha-
Tons ly the United States Congress tend 10
cripplo tic railways Of this country In their
competition with Others across the border which
are subjected TO no such restriction III, there
fore the task seems possible 10 the British
lawmaker. il by 10 means follows that the
vorl, Of regulation in this country can be held
practicable.
In the discussion Of the British bill il is Oh.
served that one of the points most sharply dis
pu,cd is the charge for terminal handling and
other expenses. Clause twcnty-four enact'
that @thc nature and amounts of all trmlna'
charges proposed TO lie authorized In respect OF
each class Of traffic, and the circumstances
under which such terminal charges are pro
poscd TO be made" shall lie fully stated But
it appears that traders protest against these
charges as strongly In Great Britain a. ship
pcrs do in this country claiming that they are
altogether Illegal and that by means OF them
The companies are charging twice over for
services incidental TO the work Of conveyance,
and that until they are abolished shOrt-distance
traffic must always he heavily handicapped.
These arc familiar arguments TO shippers III
this country also. but there arc not many In
these DAYS who do not understand thai there Is
n necessary increase In the cost OF handling
traffic short distances as compared with long
distance transportation, and that any attempt
TO cqualizc charges per ton per mile involves
an unreasonable taxation Of the long distance
traffic for the benefit OF short-dstancc shippers.
Precisely the question which the Interstate
Commerce bill cyaded namely, whether pref.
crcnta rates to or from competing points or
to large shippers involve unjust discrimination
is one Of the points most seriously In dispute
in connection with the British bill. This
measure submits the question whether
lower charge or difference Of treatment does
or does not amount 10 an undue preference >
10 the commissioners or TO courts having juris-
diction. But the traders insist that there is
no preferential rate for which the plea of ne
cessity cannot be urged and if the gaining OF
traffic il in any case a justification for prefer
cntial rates. there can be no limit TO the power
of the company to discriminate against ship
pcIs or localities IL IL is found difficult 10
deal with this phase Of the matter in Great
Britain, where competition is limited and com
paratiyely simple, how much more difficult will
il be found for commissioners or courts 10 set
Tie upon just principles the infinitely more COM
plicated questions which must arise In this
country.
The British bill Is held by conservative
thinkers, and apparently by most members of
Parliament altogether implacticabIe. Tho Board
of Trade has already publicly contested, says
s.The London Economist that Inc task OF
classifying and determining railway rates Is
one which il is unable 10 accomplish. Mr..
Chamberlain has frankly admitted that the
original idea of requiring the companies TO
adopt rates and cassiGcaIions framed by tho
Board had TO be abandoned. Equally serious
appear the difficulties of securing any settle
ment OF questions arising. tho british bill pro-
vdng for an appeal from tho commissioners.
first To a court Of appeals and then 10 the House
OF Lords IL is observed that tho measure now
offered by the Conservative Ministry is praoti-
cally Identical with uie one proposed by tho
Liberal Ministers at the last session, which was
almost universally condemned The sauna